"asked 7 mins ago", "closed 4 mins ago" + "Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow." - edit, but hurry up before we close! This must be Stackoverflow's new welcoming culture then? (not my question, but somebody else's, closed for not being on topic, but could have happened to me as it did several times in the past)

And rightfully so because people who can't ask proper questions would make SO useless to 95% of the users. That's by clogging search engine results with useless hits. Not welcoming people who would ruin the platform is reasonable.

@rutee07 The more SO rants and also mistagged posts on devRant I read, the more I'm convinced that SO, with its objective in mind, is doing the right thing by being strict.

@Fast-Nop @rutee07 I agree to specificity and relevancy being a positive side to narrow-mindedness, but my point was that this is happening too fast. If someone really cares to edit and elaborate and take their due time, the question will be closed before they hit save. Too fast and based on too little community votes to prevent false positives. Concerning relevancy and search engines, there have been discussions and proposals on SO meta to achieve relevancy on the main SO site without losing valuable input every day.

@fraktalisman So what? All easy questions have already been asked anyway. There's nothing a noob could contribute in terms of questions, so better close it right away.

SO is not a helpdesk. SO is not a forum. SO is not a community. SO is not for handholding noobs. SO is for giving good search engine results on questions, i.e. mainly for users who don't even have an SO account. These are the main SO users.

@Fast-Nop "there's nothing a noob could contribute in terms of questions", never ever in any possible future.

@fraktalisman Again, so what? That doesn't justify undermining SO's value with thousands of bad noob postings. SO is not about the asking persons. SO is not about them feewings, them snowflakes.

ok boomer, but I'm not a flake, I'm a boomer myself 🤔 which is misunderstaning your point on purpose, I think I get your point. SO does add much value to the web, much more than any search engine algorithm could have achieved in the past 10 years

@fraktalisman Yeah good - though the snowflake didn't refer to you because the SO question was not yours, as you wrote in the OP, hence the feewings in question were not yours.

I get @fraktalisman’s point. SO is helpful but could perhaps even be more so if potentially valid and valuable questions weren’t being dismissed so quickly.
SO does the job many times but what about those times when you just can’t find the answer?
I recently had a specific issue and the only "valid" accepted answer was pointing to a package that didn’t work and was not being maintained anymore. I eventually figured things out on my own and wrote an answer on that post (turns out it was much simpler than having to rely on a package). But what if had not? What if I had asked the question again elsewhere? Would it have been dismissed because already asked (and wrongfully answered)?

@black-kite Your question should have included a link to that answer, and an explanation why that answer doesn't cut it. After all, you are expected to show what you already did to solve the problem, so that would fit there.

@Fast-Nop fair enough. Thanks for the tip